these two calumnies against us as I hope shall be seen in its place His Seventh is that they asserted the possibility of fulfilling the Law If he had said that we assert a possibility of keeping the Commandments of GOD not of our selves but through the Grace of GOD. We own this charge and think it no error but a sound and great Truth As for the word Law we are not under the Law but under Grace And here according to his custom he inserts a gross lie upon R. B saying for the denyal of which R B promised continually to rail upon all the Reformed It seems the man hath dreamed this For I am certain he can never tell where or to whom he promised any such thing What he undertakes in his fourth Chapter we shâ—ll see how he proves it His eight instance is that they denyed the perseverance of the Saints In this he also misrepresents us for we have alwayes asserted that there is a state of Confirmation in Grace attainable by all and attained by in any which cannot be fallen from And that some have made shipwrack of Faith and a good conscience cannot be denyed His Ninth instance is their denving of the Resurrection of the same body and referts to the fifth Chapter of his book But whatever the Apostle Paul saith in I Corinth 15. We do willingly believe and acknowledge and if this Man hath any thing more revealed unto him concerning the Resurrection then what Paul tells us he will do well to publish it His Tenth is that they deny the Sacred Trinity and the Divinity of Christ which he also deceitfully chargeth upon us referring to his 4th Chapter wherein I hope his deceit shall be detected The Just GOD who searcheth our hearts and knoweth the contrary will certainly reward this false accuser according to his work except he repent His Eleventh instance is That they asserted The Ministers of the Gospel ought not to be tyed to the explaining of the scriptures that all in the Church ought to speak by turns c. And that the Ministers ought to have no certain Stepend This instance hath three accusations To the first we say If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of GOD and according to the Grace given him so let him Minister Not that we are against the explaining of scripture by a Minister as he is led thereto by the Spirit of Christ But that in his Preaching he should be tyed thereto only we see no reason for it for either this tye upon him is by Divine or Humane authority If by Divine authority let our author produce it and it shall be no more disputed And if by human authority as indeed the whole Presbyterian Ministry is Then this tye is not binding upon any true Gospel Minister But he may teach exhort admonish as GOD giveth him utterance not contrary but according to the Scriptures without taking a Text and telling his own dark imaginations from it His Second accusation is that all in the Church ought to speak by turns This is another gross lie for we never said that all in the Church ought to speak but we are not ashamed with Paul to say 1 Corinth 14. 13. For yee may all Prophesie one by one yet not all in the Church for as the same Apostle sayeth No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost His Third accusation is That the Ministers ought not to have certain Stipend It is strange that this malicious adversary can represent in its true and genuin collours but twines and twists like a crooked Serpent to fasten some reproach upon innocent men Can there be a more certain Stepend then the free benevolence of true Christians to a true Christian Minister Or do any of our Ministers complain of wanr or come to begg of the Presbyterians but he should have said we were against a forced mantainance by Horning poinding Imprisonment Adjudication of Lands by which tools ye exact Temporals from such as will have none of these things ye call Spirituals And herein we have many Martyrs and good Protestants for us as ye cannot but know altho this degenerate and self seeking generation have forsaken their paths and have followed the way of Balaam who loved the wages of unrighteousness His twelfth Instance is They denyed that a Christian ought to be a Magistrate or in any case make Warr to take or administer Oaths Or trouble any man upon the account of his Religion Or to prohibite any kind of Religion Here are five bold accusations again whether they were doctrines of these Anabaptists I know not nor am I concerned I think it is very unlike that such fighters as they were said to be would deny all Warrs to be Lawful But to the first I Answer It is a horrid and shameless Lie And for instance some of us have been Magistrates partieularly Gavine Lawrie in the Province of East New-Jarsey in America to the great satisfaction of 〈◊〉 the Inhabitants In this place a certain Presbiterian Preacher came to him and complained of his Hearers That contrary to their Contract made with him they refused to pay him for Preaching Whereupon both parties being heard He decerned that during the time contained in the Contract they should pay him Which was a great disapointment to the Brethren As for the unlawfulness of Oaths and Warrs under the Gospel We owne it and have abundantly proven it in many Treatises yet unanswered And as for Libertie of Conscience it wont to be the great cry of the Presbiterians when they were under persecution themselves But being now the Church triumphant in Scotland they may perhaps change their tune But for this he may Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum And if it be the duty of the Magistrate any kind of Religion to prohibite then sure Reformation of Religion does not belong to the Commonality as John Knox saith Yea if this had been only the Office of the Magistrate Presbytrie had never reigned in Britan. But to take these accusations in the Complex and compare them with these of Julian the Apostat against the Primitive Christians And Reader will find a greater agreement then betwixt us and the Anabaptists Philip Melanchton in his Chronicon Carionis page 278. Scripsit ipse libros contra Christianos c Thus Englished He also wrote Books against the Christians or the doctrine of the Church In which Books He chiefly debateth the forbiding of Revenges He saith They take away Magistracie Judicial Sentences Punishments Lawful Warrs And infinitly confirm Robberies And Lastly That this Doctrine fighteth with common sense and taketh away the Nerves of humane Society Behold Reader the Doctrine of our Author His thirteenth and last Instance is concerning the Sacraments so called wherein I think the man hath not been well in his Witts when he ranked us with Anahaptists But because these things are to be handled elsewhere I shall here wave them Now Reader I
foreordained from Eternity that Adam should sin and that all Mankind should die and that the far greater part of them should be reprobates and be damned eternally For the Westminster Catechism saith GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass But all these things comes to pass Ergo GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained them His next is Rom 6. 23. The wages of sin is death Where saith he Death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages of sin If the Apostle had meant more kinds of Deaths then one it is like he would have said deaths in the plural number But the Apostle intends here no other kind of death then the same kind of Life he mentions in the same sentence which is Eternal The words are For the wages of sin is death But the Gift of GOD is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our LORD Now to cause the first speak of bodily death and the last of Eternall Life is so strained an Interpretation as might nauseat a Reader He would mock R B for saying The whole Creation suffered a decay for Adams sin But it seems he hath forgotten that GOD cursed the Earth for mans sake and yet the Earth was not guilty of Mans sin But saith he The body shall after the resurrection live as well as the Soul and therefore bodily death is a punishment of sin This is pretty singular for it is acknowledged by all that the body is a meer Instrument to the Soul And at this rate our Anthors Pen is guilty of all the Lies and blasmphemies in his book and Patroclus Swordguilty of the blood of all the Trojans he killed But proves nothing that bodily death was here meant by the Apostle yea he confesseth that bodily death is not a punishment to believers â—eing the sting thereof is removed by Christ Now are we come to his second Argnment I spoke of To wit That as we are justified by the Righteousness imputed to us So infants are damned by the sin of Adam imputed to them So that it the first be false in the Presbâ—terian sense the last is also false I shall first tell him what J Humphrey saith of it Treatise of Justification page 21. As for what they add usually saith he in the definition that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and made ours by Faith as an Instrument I must confess they are notions which as they never came into the head of Saint Augustine nor were received I suppose into the Church till within a Centurie or two of years since so do I question whether a Centurie or two more may not wear them quiâ—e away again Again page 25. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in its self it must be the Righteousness of his active or passive Obedience or both If his active Obedience be imputed to us then we must be look upon in him as such who have committed no sin nor omitted any Duty And then what need will there be of Christs Death How shall Christ die for our sins if we be lookt upon in Christ as having none at all If Christs passive Obedience be imputed then must we be lookâ— upon as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the Law and born the full curse of it And then how shall there be â—oom for any Pardon The Man who payes his full debt by himself or Surity can in no sense be forgiven by his Creditor If Christs active and passive Obedience both are imputed then must GOD he made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of works in the business of Justification when nothing is more aparent in Scripture then that by Grace we are Justified and by Grace saved A little after he saith There was no need to bring in this notion of Christs imputed Righteousness into the Church But that our Protestants mistake themselves and forget that we are justified and saved by the Covenant of Grace and not by the Law of Moses or Covenant of our Creation And in the foregoing page he saith I would fain know whether any of the Disciples James John or Paul himself whether Clemens Roman or Alexanderin Justine Martyr Cyprian Ambross Augustine or any of the Fathers Whether Gounsels or School men whether John Huss or Wickliff or any Father or Holy writer without resting on some bare incoherent scraps of sentences did ever understand or receive the full notion of Faiths instrumentality and the imputation of a passive Righteousness before Luther And if not whether it be possible it should be of any such moment as is made of it by most Protâ—stants I have set down these that the Reader may see we are not alone in this matter but that as good Protestants as the Presbyterians yea and some of themselves to wit Baxteâ— are of the same mind with us And yet in page 134 he is so confident of this his new notion unknown as this man saithâ— to the Apostles Fathers Counsels and first Protestants that he asserâ—eth either Adams sin to be such as by it all have sinned and by it death without exception is brought upon all mankind or else that the Spirit of God speaketh nonsence in this Text. Certainly the Apostles were plain men and had more plain simple and less intricat thoughts of the Christian Doctrines then our School-men have devised and I believe few of them would have understood their terms of Art now in vogue and if the Appostles or rather the Spirit of GOD had intended any such Doctrine as necessary to our Salvation It would not have needed Hathenish Philosophie and Logick to have strained a consequence from the Text which prehaps the writer never intended and our School mens seeking to cause the Doctrine of Christ quadrate with Heathenish Philosophie hath beeh the baâ—e of Christianity tho is he now made no less then absolutely necessary to the being of a Minister And yet for all this man is so confident let the Reader but look to the 16 Verse of the Chapter where the comparison is made and he will see that condemnation Eternal death is meant and not bodily Death His other Argument that Death Reigned from Adam to Moses can prove nothing for bodily Death hath Reigned from Adam to Patroclus and what than Ergo Infants are condemned for Adams sin for none can die but sinners this is boldly to begg the question and no more His great Argument in page 135 is That sin which is descrived to us by the Apostle that he saith brought Death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became guilty of Death and Condemnation That sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation But the first sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostle c. Ergo that sin
Spiraculum Vitarum be tells us of three or four Lexieo graphers upon whose skill of the Language his faith depends But William Penn tells him of Rabbi Nâ—bmunni Hiskuni and P Fagius And as I told him before R Barkelay told him of Athanasius and Gallus Alexandrinus whose Authority is as good as his Lexico-graphers if not better And therefore we must expect better proofs next His last Citation in page 176 is nothing to his purpose except that any thing which he thinks can blaken the Quakers is pertinent enough But I must ask him here doth he allow of Henry Forsides Answer To wit Being asked For what end Christ wept over Jerusalem He Answered As he was humane he mourned and his God-head deareed them to bell If thou owest this answer thou and he are the Blasphemers in asserting a will in Christ as Man contrary to the Will of GOD for no Man mouths for what he desires and delights in But certainly Christ as Man delighted in fulfiling the Decrees of GOD. But the words he carps at are The Eternal tendered over them This he calls a subjecting that most pure and impassible Being to the weakest Frailties of Mankind Poor Man Doth not the Scripture say That it repented the Lord that he had made Man and is grieved him at his Heart Gen 6. 6. And Eph 4. 30. Grieve not the Good Spirit of GOD. Chapter V. Of CHRIST and His Benefits OUR Author begins this Chapter with his ordinary Ingenuity as he ended the last Saying The Quakers in words ordinarly acknowledge that Christ is GOD and Man Yea Patroclus and in Write too if thou could learn to write the Truth But saith he They maintain a Spiritual and Heavenly Nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly Man which did exist before the Incarnation of Christ and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this Man the Church in all ages did feed Then he giveth us a bundle of Citations out of George Keiths Book The way east up But never one of the Scripture Arguments which he bringeth to prove these assertions Which she weth evidently that they have been too hot for his Fingers This is not like the Champion Patroclus And he might have considered that George Keith was a Philosopher and therefore might have allowed us one Casuist and have discussed him before they had charged his Doctrines upon us But he tells us it is a clear Consequence of this Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures and addeth To this they Answer Quak Confession page 33. That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures then it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine Nature a Body and a Soul But with no better Candour hath he cited this place then his Brother Hicks and Faldo used to I shall therefore set down the words But if they argue that at least Christ hath three Natures in himself We say their own Principle will conclude that as much as ours For the God-head is one Nature The Nature of the Soul is a second And the Nature of the Body is the third And our Adversaries themselves teach That as GOD is three Persons in one Nature So Christ is three Natures in one Person Who seeth not here that our Author hath disingenuously skipt over the strength of the answer to wit the latter part of it which is an argume nt ad hominem and that themselves are owners of that which they would make an absurdity in others But if he have leasure he may read the Cantabridgian Philosopher H More concerning the Astral bodies of men For which I find him not censured by any as making men to be Monsters and so you may allow George Keith some latitude in such Metaphisical stuff however he is of Age and can answer for himself His next is in page 179 where he chargeth us with quite anihilating and destroying the Divinity of Christ for which he citeth a book of one Christopher Aitkinson in the time of Oliver Cromwel But I ask him hath he this book Or hath he taken it upon trust Or found it folding up wares in some Grossers Shop For my part I never saw this book nor know I if there be such a book Extant in this World but he hath had two sufficient answers the first that G Aitkinson was not a Quaker the Second if he deny Christ to be a man we 〈◊〉 him who do say that Christ is both GOD and Man And here let the Reader observe that J Brown thought this a good answer to R B as is to be seen Vind page 67 But our Author will hear no such thing and affirmeth in page 181 That this confession serveth only to prove us guilty of the most wicked Hypocrisie lieing and self-contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover our abominations to prove this heap of gross and unworthy calumnies he betakes himself to George Keiths book again and the places before cited quite ommitting as before all the arguments used by George Keith and never offering us one argument to prove his false accusations of Hypocrisie lieing and false accusation but proceeds like a scolding Kailwife reeling and roaring like a drunken man foaming out his own shame But he saith these Doctrines of George Keiths destroy all the arguments for proving the Divinity of Christ of which he mentioneth one By him all things were Created But was the power of the Logos lessened by taking that Flesh of the Virgin And was he not as able to have Created the World after his Incarnation and Assumption of that Body as he was from Eternity And then what did his being the Heavenly Man the first born of every Creature hinder the Logos from Creating the World and all things therein As for his Vbiquity George Keith hath aboundantly cleared himself in the Book before cited to which I referr him and shall now come to his Dilemma which is this If all things were created by Christ as Man Then either the Manhood of Christ is Created or not If Created then it is Created by it self then which there is nothing more absurd if Uncreated then there is an uncreated Man and a Man that is Coeternal with GOD. Answer The fallacie of this Dilemmâ— lyeth in the first supposition and is obvious to a very mean understanding To wit If all things were Created as Man This was never asserted by George Keith as his own words cited by this impudent Author will easily prove page 93 The Word made Flesh Created all things Now except he will say that he was weakened or disabled by assuming a Body he can make nothing of his Delemma for he was still and is and will be for ever the same Eternal and Omnipotent GOD as well as Man If he ask who made that Heavenly Body I answer The same GOD Almighty who made the Body which he took of the Virgin and so his Consequence of an Vnereated
Man Coeternal with GOD is a meer fancie For George Keith calls the Heavenly Man the First Born of every Creature as the Apostle also doeth and never asserted that he was Man from all Eternity I need not trouble further abont G K they having promised a full answer to the Book and I think he will hardly refuse to enter the Lists with this Graecian Here But I shall give a citation to chaw his Cude upon as he words it and so leave this matter Melan bron Car page 274 citeth Socrates Scholastious for three Cannons of the Counsel of Syrinum The second of which is Si quis cum Jacob non filium tanquam hominem Colluctatum esse dixerit sed noâ— gonitum Deum aâ—t Patrem Deum Anathemasit After his Dilemma and a little railing Telling we are worse then Arrians or Socinians and such like stuff not worthy to be transcribed He at last falls upon the Light calling it a meer chymerical None-entity Seeing there is nothing more contradictory then that either the Soul or the Body of a Man can he every where or from Eternity That it was from Eternity is his false Alledgiance and none of our Assertions And for its Vbiquity he may see Quak eonfirmed in the place before cited That the Seed and Life is in Him in the fullness as in the fountain or spring but in us as the streams in Him as the Head in us as the members And as the Light is principally in the Body of the Sun yet diffuseth it self through the whole world Even so the Light of Christ the Sun of Righteousness As for his Relicts of the Image of GOD in Adam that quenched spunk of his Extinguished Lantern he might have left it alone for any Advantage he made by it last In the beginning of page 83. He takes a very singular fitt of Railling and Lying He sayes in favours of this Spiritual Antichrist or Antichristlan Figment which they account for their Christ They decry vilifâ—e and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be dear and precious to a Christian for what will they not deny seeing they deny the Godhead of Christ They therefore with open mouth blasphem and deny Jesus Christ as a Person without them c. What will this Man stick to assert who after so many accounts of our Faith in this matter can with an hardned face and I may say a seared Conscience assert such gross untruths For which I wish the LORD may grant him Repentance But as the Poet saith Nam quis innocens arit quis tristiore liberabitur nota si eriminare sufficit I hope the World hath learned by a long Experience that a Clergie Man is not alwayes to be trusted I had almost said seldom when he turns accuser of the Brethren But to a muse or rather abule his Reader he gives us a bundle of Citations upon the Authority of his Friend Mr. Hieks as he calls him so sully answered in the very places cired by him and our Doctrine sully cleared in this matter That if the man had not been past all shame he would not have dared to revive the Dottages of that defated Forger Who durst not again attempt to answer for himself But this Authors impudence must be more then ordinary who hath throughout his whole Pamphlet been crying out against us as one both with Anabaptists and Soceniaus whom in page 89 he calls wicked and abominable And yet in this place he takes them for his fellow Souldiers against the Quakers This is certainly as bad as to receive the Mallignants into the Army Yet common to the Chieff Priests Seribes and Pharisees in former times But what is the matter he intends by all these Citations Namely They deny saith he Jesus Christ as a Person without them distinct from Christ in them For cleating of this matter to all unbyassed persons I shall state the matter thus That Christ is with and in his Saints is a Doctrine so fully testi fied to in the Scriptures that no Christian will deny it Matth 28. 20. And lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the World Which Beza saith is meant of the manner of the presence of the Spirit c But is absent from us in Body In which Body we acknowledge him a Person without the Saints distinct from them As William Penn hath told thee tho thou had the Candour to conceal it But that Christ the LORD from Heaven the Quickning Spirit is one in the Saints and another distinct Person without them we deny And such as affirm it make two Christs See John 14. 20 23. and 15. 4. 5. and 17. 23. Rom 8. 10. 2 Cor 13. 5. Gak 1. 16. Cok 1. 27. Revel 3. 20. But in the end of these Citations He must have a second hit at H Forside Is this to tell us again That Christ as man hath a will contrary to the will of his God-head No But for saying that the word Humane is no Scripture Language but saith our Author the thing imported is found in Scripture He might have minded that the word Humanus may be derived from Humus the Earth as well as from Homo And that the Body of Christ now in Heaven is an Earthly Body is a very gross Notion Again page 84. He returneth to Hicks and Faldo but citeth us no page running at random And truly Patroclus this is an easie way of writting Books if to publish all the Lies and Forgeries devised and maliciously vented against the Quakers be an honest Imployment thou might have had another Book of that kind written before we noticed this I shall only take notice of one of the grossest of them he nameth Edward Billings but citeth neither book nor page to which George Whitehead in the Appendix before cited by our Author saith it is gross and blasphemous to say that the Mysterie of iniquity lyeth in the Blood of Christ Now Reader consider this Mans honesty who but he that would be accounted such himself could adventure his reputation upon such Authority as this Or would spread such impudent calumnies and forgeries after they had been proven so fully to be such certainly it must be a bad cause that need such Pillars to underprop it But I intreat thee Patroelus for the future speak Truth and shame the Devil In page 185 he transcribes a deal of Faldo's stuff alledging we render the Passion Death and Resurrection of our LORD JESVS at Jerusalem altogether vain and idle actions and that we call the Body that our LORD took off the Virgin only a Garment and that it is no constituent part of CHRIST A heap of gross and unparaleled lies To prove all which he citeth William Pen his Rejoynder part 2 Chap. 9. Saying thus Whereas it is said that it was revealed to Simon that he should not die till he should see the LORDS Christ is to be understood of a Spiritual sight or of seeing the Christ within Certainly
and humble For answer he sends to Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law of Works Nay But by the Law of Faith But prithee Patroclus what saith this for thee Are we boasting in our own strength or in the strength of the Grace of God Or do we depend upon the Law of Works No But on the Law of Faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by Love If to exalt the Grace of God as sufficient be to boast in thy Sense thou hast Liberty to abound in thy own sense wherein no good Christian will own thee But he giveth us another citation of R B's in these words That according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do less make useless God commands then others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for forgiveness of God Will thou never deal honestly Did R. B. once mention a perfection of degrees But to I. B's argument That the keeping the Commands of God takes away the exercise of Repentance Prayer c. He returns thus If this his Argument hold true to prove that Men must sin all their Life-time and break the Commands every day in thought word and deed then the greatest sinners and most prefligate Villains do less make useless Gods Commands then others because they affoord more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for Forgiveness of sins For answer he sendeth to Rom 3. 8. Let us do evil that good way come Which saying tho it was falsly and slanderously said of the Apostle Yet is truly said of him and and his Brother I. Brown who have thus asserted it in terminis By saying That the Keeping of Gods Commands renders the Ordinances of Christ useless His very next Words are a gross Lie saying And here he promiseth always to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus 〈…〉 Words are these As for such Ordinances â—s must be made useful by dayily breaking God's Commands in shought Word and Deed I resolve never to cry but always to cry down And here let the Reader take notice of his Blasphemy who assetâ—s the Ordinances of Christ Jesus to be such As for his â—â—llowing Question it is Nonsense Fâ—â— he R. B. never said that any Ordinance taught it but that he and his Brother have taught here That this is the use of their Ordinances but not of the Ordinances of Christ is obvious to every Reader 〈◊〉 the next place we have another of J. B's Proofs That then noâ—e that are regeneraâ— could Sic at all but would be beyond the possibility of it For which the citeth John 3. 9. and Expounds it of a trade and custom of finning from Malice like the Deâ—â—â— and the Wioked his Children And 〈…〉 prove that Regeneration adteth of no Degrees but is one instan taneous Act. To the First to wit J. Brown's Argument I say it is a wild Conscequence to conclude from a posse non peccare to a non posse peccare And yet Calvin in his Instit cireth Augustine saying Ade fuisse libertatem posse non peccare nostram vero multo majorem non posse peccare And still our Author takes R. B's modest Expression I dare not deny for a full Assertion As for his Exposition of 1 Joh. 3. 9. of a Trade and Custom of Malice like the Devil It is a meeâ— Dream there being no shadow for it in the Context His Doctrine of being Regenerat in an instant contradicts his Brother John Brown Numb 18. who says It may be begin where some Members may yet the to be mortified But according to J. B. elsewhere the Man is wholly sanctified in Mind Heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body Behold Reader how these our Adversaries reel and stagger like drunken Men I shall therefore here give him the Sense of Augustine set down by J. Brown and approven by R. Baxter in his Paper of Perfection pag. 13. He tells us that Augustine in his Book layes some two or three of these Texts together To wit Solomon Paul James John and offers us this Solution That which is born of GOD sinâ—eth not which is as much as to say there is that which is born of GOD in the true Christian and that which is not born of him Where is then the full and compleat Regeneration at one Instant The two Scriptures Phil 1. 8. and Gaâ— 5. â— He makes very short work with Telling us the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was written Ergo they were wholly sanctisied in Mind Heart Spirit c As J Brown saith the Regenerate Man is And yet breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed To the other place he saith It sayes as little for him from it he would infer the Saints falling away which is false sayes he but I hope he will not deny that Paul was in part regenerate when he said Lest when I have preached the Gospel to others I my self should be a east away He spends page 195 proving Regeneration to be accomplished at one instant not by Scripture for that fails him here Only he instanceth two Saying I would sain Know If the thief on the Cross and the Jâ—â—â—â— were not him again 〈…〉 from a Particular to an Universal 〈◊〉 Jâ—mes and John saw Christ Transâ—â—guâ—ed therefore all men did so Rnoch 〈◊〉 were translated Therefore all the Saints are so What he speaks of Children in Christ R. B. grants that they are under a possibility of sinning and a capaâ—â—â— thereunto but modestly again Tin page 120 saith dare noâ— affirm But that there man be some 〈…〉 sin 〈◊〉 He proceeds alledging from 1 John 2. 12. That thee to whom the Apostle wrote were perfectly 〈◊〉 of GOD but that Scripture saith no such thing only that their sins were forgâ—â—â—n which according to himself is the first Act of Justification and proceedath Sanctification of the whole man as 〈◊〉 words it in mind heare c. And so not perfect Regeneration But doth this prove that these Children did break dayly the Commands of GOD in thought word and deed That they were perfectly born of GOD the proveth because saith he They had the seed of GOD or Vnction abiding in them But the Seed before it come to perfection or â—obring forth froit in requites a time and I hope our Author will not deny that the young man mentioned here by the Apostle who had overcome the Evil one were more perfectly and fully Regenerated then the Children tho the Children were perfect as to their measure So that it follows not that any of them did break the commands of GOD dayly in thought word and deed which only is the matter in debate no more then it follows that how soon the seed is in the Womb it is as perfectly a man as when it comes to the use of reason But seeing he here talks of the Seed of GOD and of the Unction I desire he
neglecting the Reason his Adversary gave for his denyal and then exclaims But why should I take notice c Now should not our Author rather have enforced this Reason If it had been worth his while he had not skipt over it But when he perceives it will not do it is enough for him to say John Brown hath done wonders why should I take notice c. Next he comes to Matth 14. 19. Which R B sayes according to our Author will as much prove a Sacrament as the places of the Gospel and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarly brought can do it Here Reader thou hast another instance of his deceit for clearing whereof I shall set down R. Bs. words he asketh What signifieth CHRISTS blessing of the Bread breaking giving it to his Disciples desiring them to eat Answer Christ blessed the Bread break it and gave it to his Disciples to eat and they to others where themselves confess no such Sacrament or Mystery as they would have here is reduceable see Matt. 14. 19. Mark 6. 41. Now let the Reader judge of this mans ingenuity But sayes he R. B. never inferred any thing of this kind from simple blessing but from other things considered with blessing such as this is my Body this is my Blood And the unrepealled command and Institution 1 Cor. 11. and the like What Foppery is this Doth he think to inferr the real Presence from these words this is my Body Or will his meer assertion satisfie that 1 Cor. 11. was a command for continuance of of that Sign For to call it the institution is nonesense being institute before Paul was a Christian but to use his own words he hath done as well as he can and is to be excused if he would but cease to boast That which followes is no better where he citeth R. B. saying he saith indeed that the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. was a permission c. When will this man learn to deal honestly upon R. B's saying That 1 Cor 11. Will not prove the necessity of its being now performed J B sayes That then it was an act of will worship and superstition R B Answereth What is done by permission for a time is not Will Worship and Superstition c Now it concerned our Author to prove that there was no Institution of this Rite before this Epistle to the Corinthians And in that case he had delivered his Brother and made it an act of Will-Worship For his saying That R B granteth there was a Command for this Practise is nothing to his purpose for he did not say this was it but another before it And so this was no Will-Worship to the Corinthians nor any proof for its continuance The next is about washing the Disciples feet and his express Command that they should wash every one anothers feet To which he answereth John Brown hath shewed disparity And that R B saith meer nothing but calleth him a Pope This every Man that will be at the pains to read the place will find to be a gross untruth but this is ordinary His next in page 234. Where he citeth Acts 20. 7. to prove that the circumstances are not to be observed The words it seems are when the Disciples came together to break Bread Paul preached unto them and therefore say our Adversaries This was a Sacramental Eating no circumstance to be observed A singular Consequence and well worthy our Author May he alwayes dispute thus against us And 1 Cor 11. 18 20. I desire he may tell us next what relation it hath to his matter In the next place he begins with Acts 2. 42. And complains that R B denyes this to be meant of the LORDS Supper But herein he accuseth Beza who in his notes upon this place saith The Jews used thinn Loaves and therefore they did rather break them then cut them So by breaking of Bread they understand that living together and the Banquets which they used to keep The Reader may see what trouble it is to trace him to no purpose But he cometh again to Acts 20. 7. And saith R B slighteth his Adversaries Reason Which is another gross Lie as the Reader may see Vind page 172. But why doth he not bring some thing to help his Brother and not tell us he hath done all When all Intelligent and Unbyassed Men judge he hath done more hurt then Good to his own Cause And yet this Section is nothing but a meer Elogie upon J B's Book In Answer to Numb 20. Saith our Author R B bringeth nothing but meer Assertions false Suppositions such as that the Corinthians were supperstitious in that they at all practised this Duty of the LORDS Supper I acknowledge he must be sharper sighted then I who can see these words in R B's Vindication upon Numb 20. or any where else But being near the close he begins to Dream again and may perhaps be Simon next because he was Patroclus last and sure he is more like the first for Lying and Deceit is the best part of his work To R B's Saying That 1 Cor 11. 26. Is to be understood of Christs Inward and Spiritual Coming Apol page 341 and his Vind page 173 He giveth no Answer But it is needless at all to impugne this distinction it s own groundlesness sufficiently doth it This is like a mighty Man and well worthy a Groecian Hero And now he is come to his ultimus conatus which he must excuse me to tell him is of all his Book the most ridiculous For to conclude from the Abrogation of Rites Signs and Ceremonies That preaching the Gospel was also abrogate To prove this he saith it will as well follow from Col 2. 20. That preaching the Gospel is abrogate as from verse 16. and Rom 14. 17. That the LORDS Supper is abrogate I shall therefore set down the Words and leave it to the Judgement of the Reader Rom 14. 17. For the Kingdom of GOD is not meat and drink but Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Col 2. 16. Let no Man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an Holy Day or of the new Moon or of the Sabbath Dayes I shall now add his Citation for abrogating of preaching Col 2. 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with CHRIST from the Rudiments of the World why as tho living in the World are ye subject unto Ordinances Touch not Taste not c. Now if the LORDs Supper as used by you be not Meat and Drink I know nothing what Bread and Wine are But what a Commentary will this 20. verse need to cause it intend preaching of the Gospel I remember the Presbyterian Dialect was wont to run thus To hear Sermon was called a Haunting of the Ordinances And to abstaine was called a dishaunting of the Ordinances And therefore it seems he understands the word Ordinances in the 20. verse for Preaching He must shew us what relation Preaching